Leave lesson

Algebra · Algebraic proof

1 / 9

Proving divisibility results

The expand–collect–factorise engine: to prove "always a multiple of k", exhibit the expression as k × (whole number) — and say so.

Algebra · Algebraic proof

Proving divisibility results

The expand–collect–factorise engine: to prove "always a multiple of k", exhibit the expression as k × (whole number) — and say so.

Why it works

"A multiple of kk" MEANS "kk times a whole number". So a divisibility proof has one goal: wrestle the expression into the exact shape

k×(something whole),k \times (\text{something whole}),

and then say that's what it is. The engine is always the same: encode → expand → collect → factorise out kk → conclude.

Watch it run — *the sum of five consecutive integers is a multiple of 5*:

n+(n+1)+(n+2)+(n+3)+(n+4)=5n+10=5(n+2).n + (n+1) + (n+2) + (n+3) + (n+4) = 5n + 10 = 5(n + 2).

n+2n + 2 is a whole number, so the sum is 5 × (whole number) — a multiple of 5, for every nn. The factorised line is the proof; the sentence after it is the mark scheme's final tick. Stopping at 5n+105n + 10 leaves the reader to do the last step — write the 5()5(\ldots) form explicitly.

Sometimes everything cancels — proving a constant. Some "show that" claims reduce to a number: expand carefully and watch the nn's annihilate. If the survivors are just 22, you have proven the expression ALWAYS equals 2 — independence from nn is the point, and sign errors in the expansion are the only enemy.

Disproving divisibility: exhibit the leftover. "The sum of four consecutive integers is a multiple of 4"? Encode and expand: 4n+6=4(n+1)+24n + 6 = 4(n + 1) + 2 — there is always a remainder of 2, so it is NEVER a multiple of 4. (A single numeric counterexample, 1+2+3+4=101+2+3+4 = 10, also suffices — but the algebra shows it fails for every nn, which is stronger.)

The grade-9 tool: products of consecutive integers. Among any two consecutive integers one is even; among any three, one is a multiple of 3 (and one is even). So n(n+1)n(n+1) is always even, and (n1)n(n+1)(n-1)n(n+1) is always divisible by both 2 and 3 — hence by 6. Factorising INTO consecutive pieces, then citing these facts, cracks problems that pure expansion can't.